My mind's in a knot... (Re: Who/what created God?)

I was in a hurry and didn't mean that maths couldn't describe the evolution of a wavefunction or the Feynman path integral or some other mathematical description of the quantum world. I meant that the quantum world defies not only my common sense, but the commonsense of everyone. I agree with Feynman that "If you think you understand quantum mechanics - you are wrong". From the POV of our daily experience, QM is not a proper description of reality. Isn't that what Feynman meant? Is there a definite final interpretation that physicists agree upon and that has no significant shortcomings? True, i never said hard work is futile. Yet, most physicists do miss the physics "revolution" of the beginning of the 20th century. It's not only my opinion that physics has slowed down considerably in the last 60 years. Let's not talk about me, I do sometimes feel like i've chosen the wrong path education-wise and i didn't mean a complete theory of everything was impossible, that was the view of Stephen Hawking. I just said a new level of logic might be needed(this in my mind is similar to when Einstein tore down the old Newtonian worldviews of space and time). BTW I didn't mean to imply that I understand physics on the level of a professioanlly trained physicist(LOL sorry if i came across like that). I am merely guided by my sheer curiousity and influenced to a great extent by the books of the greatest physicists of our time and their worldviews. And frankly I'd choose their opinions and findings over the input of my 5 senses or any religion i've seen so far. And realistically, even if i read all the books in physics, i'd still be a layman, but more often than not, in my posts you could see a reflection of the views of some of the greatest physicists(whenever i happen to agree and comprehend what's been laid out in written form in front of me). It is not. Maybe we are the doorstep of a new new "revolution" of physics, just like the physics at the beginning of the 20th century. Or maybe it's not near.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This didn't deal with the question though. You are still implying the existance of God is a plausable scenario to the existance of everything, yet God was invoked by our 5 senses. So again, if these 5 senses can come up with the God hypothesis they are more than adequate to determine that God was nothing more than primitive human intuition.It's the same as determining that modern medicine is better than religious shaman.So, IMO, it is better to remove the primitive concept of God and allow the evidence to place the puzzle pieces together, rather than invoke the answer (i.e. God) before one even understands what one is asking.Plus, your answer just seems like you're searching for anything to satisfy certain curiosities. Careful with those far-out intuitions, you my decide to write a book and center a religion around it. Those laws do have a creator, us. The laws exist to define reality, in that sense they are meaningless to anything that doesn't experience reality the way we do. I do not think they were created anywhere. Thus no medium is required, no other set of laws are even considered. Human logic is great upto a certain point; spacetime, sub-atomic scales, quantum physics, etc, defy our logic and thus can only be understood by creating a means to understand them. Thus the "laws of physics". The laws are a means of understanding reality in a humanly logical way. So, no, I would not discard human logic, if anything I say endorse the use of this logic to further our understanding of our universe. But keep primitive beliefs out of it, as you would keep religious shaman out of modern medicine.There is no need to invoke the supernatural when one is trying to understand the natural.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi onifre, I would agree with your post only and if you acknowledge the findings of modern physics that all elementary particles and their wavefunctions are purely mathematical objects. Then we can shake hands and conclude that our consciousness is the single most powerful tool in the universe, that creates everything, inlcuding the laws of physics. Then under this scenario i would agree that the laws of physics are entirely a human creation. But if you are entertaining a relativistic outlook on reality, I will strongly disagree. There is no way in hell that the laws that "taught" us how to use cause-effect logic, could have been created by human consciousness in, hypothetically speaking, a material and physical universe, that allegedly has existed before our arrival to bring about those laws that you are suggesting are our creation. Because a relativistic view on the world would tell us that there was a world with laws of physics before we appeared(in whatever form).BTW the concept of God is not an enemy of science, it is only an enemy of atheism. When a physicist ventures to risk his career and talk about god, he's usually flirting with the idea of "knowing the mind of God", which is neither unscientific, nor supernatural. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I think your semantics is screwed up here Agobot.So protons, neutrons, electrons, muons, photons, quarks, etc are only mathematical objects? Numbers are mathematical objects, functions are mathematical objects, sets are mathematical objects. Subatomic particles are not. Does the number 45 actually exist in our physical universe? No. Do subatomic particles exist? Yes.They may defy common sense (preconceived notions by humans of how the world works) as Onfire pointed out but they are not solely mathematical objects. We can measure the energy content of a subatomic particle, many (though not all) particles we can even measure there mass, their interaction with other particles, their spin etc. Can we do this with the number 45? No. Mathematical objects are used to DESCRIBE our reality, they are not part of our reality whereas subatomic particles are actually components inside our universe (our reality).As far as wave functions, yes they are mathematical objects because they are used to describe how the universe and the quantum realm functions and in of themselves are not physical objects. Where do you derive this from what Onfire is stating? My understanding (and I think Onfire and I are on the same sheet of music), is that the laws of physics are an attempt by human beings to describe how the universe we live in functions. The question of why are their laws in the first place, is an anthropic concept meaning that if they didn't exist we may not have been here to ask the question. However are we sure that life or intelligence could not exist at all if we had a different set of laws? Good question. Who knows? Does that mean we have to resort to a supernatural cause for the universe for the laws of physics to exist? I have yet to see a conclusive proof of why this has to occur.How are you defining supernatural? Many describe the supernatural is anything that exists outside this universe that doesn't have to follow the laws of physics of the universe we live in. What about the existence of a multiverse with possibly different laws of physics? Would that be considered supernatural or still part of our physical reality? These are both philosophical and scientific questions that we still do not have answers to. I put God into the same category as the multiverse. In other words, we still don't know.Should we automatically latch onto and fully put our faith into the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent being because we have yet to answer these questions? Why, when there are so many other possibilities that can also be explored and discovered. I am more of a pragmatist, and have a wait and see approach to this (and so do many atheists). Let science do its job and see what it brings to the table in the future instead of jumping the gun and automatically assuming that the universe was created by some unseen supernatural entity. The laws describing how natural phenomena in our universe behave are manmade. The phenomena themselves and their behavior are not. You act as if these "laws" are a tangible object. They are not. They are human construct of how our universe behaves as I explained previously. This is not an intuitive idea but we have to wrap our head around this. The universe and its behavior existed long before humans came on the scene. Our construct of the "laws of physics" to describe the universe's behavior evolved through scientific inquiry, discovery and an increase in knowledge about our universe over several thousand years of modern human existence.For example, Isaac Newton developed the three laws of motion to describe the relationship of acceleration of an object and the forces acting on this object. Did that mean these forces not exist before Newton discovered them? Of course not.If you are asking why this behavior of forces i.e. gravity, etc exist in the first place than this is philosophical question that at this time cannot be answered by fully answered by science (though there is much speculation including m-theory which is an amalgamation of various other scientific theories). Again, do we have to resort to some supernatural cause, which opens up Pandora's Box of infinite regression of causation, or can we continue with scientific inquiry and discovery and place this question on the back burner until we can find more evidence that points us in the right direction. Actually the concept of God is not an enemy of atheism either. We just treat the concept of God as another hypothesis among many of probable and improbable causes of the universe (if there was a cause in the first place). And what God are you talking about? The Christian God, the Jewish God, the Hindu gods, Allah, Zeus, Thor, etc. This is a metaphor often used (i.e. by Einstein and others) to trying to understand the fundamental nature of the universe nothing more. You are reading to much into this.To study the supernatural realm of which God would be a part would be unscientific because we cannot use the tools of science and logic to study it. How do you provide evidence of a miracle if it defies the laws of physics? How can you provide evidence of a supernatural being that can willingly defy all physical laws of nature and make himself disappear from our reality? By definition of science i.e. the study of natural phenomena, the supernatural is automatically excluded.In the end, it comes down to this. We do not know yet. So let's continue scientific research and wait for substantiated evidence before blindly attaching our faith to any one conclusion.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Just because the God who is has not made Himself appear sufficiently to your reality does not mean He has not made Himself appear to those who believe in His name. Blessings

You are missing my point entirely. How can we prove his existence through science if he can bend the laws of physics at will?Unsubstantiated, emotional laden, personal spiritual experiences have no place in the realm of science. If they do then we have to let in a whole host of other pseudoscientific unsubstantiated experiences with paranormal phenomena like UFO's, Big Foot, ESP, ghosts, astrological, etc which would reduce science inquiry to a backwards retrogation that hasn't existed since the stagnation of midieval Europe over 600 years ago.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Well i do encourage everyone to participate in our debate, but at the same time it's mandatory that you at least learn the ABC of quantum theory. If you have some disagreement with QM and you want to prove protons and neutrons as elementary, indivisible particles, write a paper, submit it to some of the science journals and have it peer reviewed. It's OK to prove all the physicists in the world wrong but until then, conform to what's already accepted as a valid and tested theory. When you say this, are you aware that it directly flies in the face of Werner Heisenberg, among other top physicists who i believe understand quantum mechanics around 10^43 times better than you? Have you heard of Heisenberg? He spent a lot of time pondering about nature and reality and wrote few interesting books--Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics
-Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern ScienceAnd you know what? I think when he says:"I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language."... I think he's right and you are wrong. Maybe he happens to know what an elementary particle is, what do you think? Maybe he has an idea where the energy/mass of the atoms come from and you don't. Yes, the 10 min. googling has yielded something meaningful. LOL. I thougth this kind of atheistic drivel was the reserved domain of young earth creationists. So you are basically presenting as a scientific explanation that the reason I am hungry is because i am hungry and if I wasn't hungry, we wouldn't be able to talk about me being hungry.Is this really all you could come up with? And who slipped you the BS that laws of physics are always inherent part of energy? I don't describe anything, i am merely trying to stay away from dogma, while at the same time, I don't consider what is unknown "supernatural". So yes, i kind of share your views. I am not jumping to conclusions, I am merely pointing out why both atheism and religions are dogma. And quite frankly, it seems i am the only one here who expresses concern if human logic is the proper tool for knowing the ultimate reality(if we ever find it). Cavediver thinks human logic is unbounded and there is no limit to our knowledge(I don't fully share this view), but then you have to wonder why the universe is comprehensible in the first place. Einstein couldn't figure it out, past his conviction that God is the creator of everything. And whatever you will ever find, will be a product of our inherent logic. There is simply no way of testing our own logic, so we have to believe it is right. If we are the creation of something, we are fighting a lost cause. Either accept what we've come to understand through scientific experiments(though there is no way to test if this hasn't been rigged by the creator) or wait a few decades and greet the Unknown, which is probably the only way to find out. I think i'll meet most of you fellas in hell, then we'll have this issue settled and laugh. I will, if you acknowledge that atheism is as much of a belief as thesim.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi Abogot, just want to address this particular comment, Atheism is a disbelief in religious Gods, not some unknowable unknown entity that you are creating via pure imgination. There is no term for a disbelief in that kind of imaginary entity. That you simply assert a being capable of creating everything does not in turn make anyone that disbelieves you an atheist towards your imagination.Athesim, as in the disbelief of scriptural, religious, tribal, supernatural, gods, is warrented when staring at the mountains of evidence that contradicts all religious texts. You are proposing some other type of entity and are calling it God for lack of a better word. So, disagreeing with you does not make one an atheist, disagreeing with religious, scriptural and tribal gods, does. Which, if I'm not mistaken, you disagree with also. So you are an atheist as well.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

When did I say that protons and neutrons are elementary, indivisible particles?Never. Go back and look at my posts and stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.Even though I am not a particle physicist, I think I understand the basics of quantum physics. I understand that neutrons and protons are made up of smaller more elementary particles called quarks i.e. up and down quarks and electrons and photons are fundamental particles with no smaller component particles (we are not discussing string theory here, that is a whole other, theoretical ball of wax). My point is that these particles (even though some do pop into and out of "existence" at the quantum level however in more technical terms they converting back in forth from pure energy to matter and vice versa) are real bits of matter and energy, not simply a mathematical fabrications. I am no mathematician but I understand the difference between a totally non-existent (in terms of the universe) mathematical concept used to describe our natural world and the actual physical object that is being described by mathematics. That is, there is a difference between a mathematical object i.e. the equation describing the behavior of matter, and the piece of matter or energy itself that actually exists in our universe. Here is a good explanation of what a mathematical object is from: The Mathematical Experience p.157-158 and 356-358If you want to call subatomic particles mathematical objects than through logical deduction we have to conclude that our entire universe including us human beings are one big "mathematical object or system" which does nothing to further your point that the quantum realm is some mysterious, strange realm of supernatural causation seperate from our macroscopic much more "normal" reality (correct me if I am wrong on this assessment as this is what I gather from your rather cryptic posts). No, I have never heard Werner Heisenberg, you condescending prick (just kidding) , I only mentioned him just previous your post as shown here. I may be wrong, but I think we are saying the same thing using different terminology as far as the nature of quantum physics.Notice that Heisenberg says "not physical objects in the ordinary sense". My take on this is that these "particles" are not tangible physical things that we can isolate, measure and study. Hence Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle explains that the smaller the scale we analyze matter the more we approach the fuzzy boundary which borders between energy and matter and that our very act of observing disrupts the behavior of matter in such a way that it results in the inability to both measure the location and the motion of " particles" of matter simultaneously.Here is what Phillip Davis and Reuben Hersh two Harvard trained mathematicians PHD's and mathematic university professors have to say about Platoism and mathematical objects: Also, this is also what Plato says of reality: I know you will probably bring up Plato's allegory of shadows on the back of cave wall to compare with our present understanding of reality. On this I would agree that yes, we do not have all the answers, and yes there is a possibility that a larger supernatural reality could exist from which our reality is merely a shadow of this larger reality, but then how do we prove this assertion to be true? You have yet to provide any substantial evidence that proves the existence of this much larger reality much less a coherent definition of what this reality is. Can you prove otherwise? Please provide evidence for your unsubstantiated statements.Again why do we have to resort ourselves to some supernatural supreme being to answer this question of why the universe behaves the way it does. Otherwise, we go back to, asking why then does God behave the way he does and on and on infinitim.Both Occalms razor and the logic that the burden of proof lies with the one claiming the existence of something applies here. Ok, then we really are not saying anything different then are we? So are you saying that you have no evidence of some supernatural reality outside of our natural universe? If that is what you are saying, than we are both in agreement. It sounds like you are an agnostic from the way you are talking here. I don't like labels either. My philosophy like I said previously is a wait and see approach. It is just at this moment in time I see know evidence supporting the belief in the supernatural much less in the Christian God of the Bible. I have no clue if we have all the right tools to determine the ultimate reality (whatever that may be). All I know is that we are making pretty good progress using our current scientific method. I am sure that if we could get rid of the political and economic barriers to science that our progress would even further accelerate. Why is it a mystery why the universe would be comprehensible? Even animals can learn a little bit about the world around them. The problem is that they have no organized method like us current humans of passing this information down from generation to generation and thus their knowledge of the world around them nearly resets with every new generation. Even just a few hundred years ago, our knowledge of the world regressed and we barely made it out of the "scientific" dark ages of human knowledge. Here is what Einstein said about the lack of his religious faith: He further expounded later in a letter: Obviously he was not an atheist, but he wasn't a theist either. More likely he is a deist bordering on agnostic. LOL. Hmm it seems there is more we agree on then disagree. I float back in forth between atheism and deism depending on my level of knowledge and understanding of the world around me. Right now I guess you could call me an agnostic atheist (again not mutually exclusive terms).However the burden of proof lays with deists/theists to show evidence that a reality above and beyond that which we can scientifically/mathematically test and verify. That is the ball of "providing the burden of proof" lies on there side of the field. Now they have to deliver. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

I already quoted you. I said "elementary particles are mathematical obejects" to which you replied with "protons, neutrons, etc being mathematical objects". I am not putting words into your mouth as everyone can easily see. Yes, that's wrong, I never implied anything of the sort about the quantum realm. I have on several accounts explicitly referred to life and reality as a collective experience of a consensual reality, so that should give you a hint that i meant that reality is purely in our heads. So you are saying Heisenberg says Plato was correct and at the same time he means there is an objective physical reality?Consider it this way - all elementary particles don't have a size, they don't have dimensions and they look particle-like only under certain circumstances. We say they "exist" because by looking at them with our macro bodies, we impose our classical way of thinking and describeing them(we couldn't currently use any other logic), so "electrons exist" when viewed outside our classical way of looking and thinking about them, is a misleading and incomplete picture. And when you say a wavefunction is a mathematical object, you are saying the electron is a mathematical object, because the electron is both a wave and particle at the same time. If you say the electron is a mathematical object some of the time and then say at the double slit when it is observed, it becomes a particle, then yes, i agree. That's how it appears to be. The mathematical object called wavefunction of an electron is spread out throughout the universe with different probabilities of being in a certain places, until the act of measurement where and when it becomes a particle-like zero-dimensional point(electron). This is radical to the untrained mind, but you see a monitor in front of you, only because the collective probabilities of all the particles that comprise your monitor of being at that spot(where your monitor is) is greater than say 80%. That doesn't mean that some of the electrons in your monitor are not at some point of time on Mars or in my house or anywhere else in the universe. It's only because the collective statistical value of most of the wavefunctions point to where your monitor is, that you find it there. This is the same with your brain. Although you cannot feel this, some of the electrons in your brain are "jumping"(or rather located) on nearby galaxies at this very moment. But because most are statistically where your brain is that you retain the capabily to use your brain for its designed() purpose.The physical "particle" electron is a statistical ensemble. Sure, take a positively charged particle(positron, quark) and a negatively charged particle. Do they carry the known laws of physics? Is F=m.a inscribed within their charge? Are you really saying this? This is too radical even for my beaten to death concept of reality. And even if this were true, how do we test if the the zero dimensional electron carries so much information? It goes on to infinity only if you apply our human logic to it, the cause-effect principle. If you want to apply human logic to god, you have to conclude that god is subect to laws that we can understand, that probably god eats, sleeps, drinks water, picks up chicks, goes to the toilet, has mood swings and gets angry, etc. Not that it matters to anyone but my convictions would put me closer to deist bordering on agnostic, as per your classification.

Touche. I misread your earlier statement about "elementary particles" and unawaredly added neutrons and protons which I agree are obviously not elementary (undivisible) particles. Ok, I am trying to figure out what your philosophy is, so bear with me on the hit and miss attempts to define your world view.So if reality is just in our heads does that mean we are just some part of an elaboorate matrix-like thought experiment of some more powerful supernatural entity (you did say you were a deist to some degree). And if so, what difference does it make since we obviously have no control over this "shadow" reality or of this supernatural entity. Therefore in my opinion we should just continue on the road we are on now of scientific inquiry and back up this reality with Descartes' cogito ergo sum axiom.BTW, I have yet to hear you provide any evidence to this hypothetical reality you speak of. It seems to just be unsubstantiated metaphorical conjecture. Correct me if I am wrong. Just because Heisenberg was correct in proposing his uncertainty principle doesn't mean everything he said about reality is correct. Einstein was initially wrong about the universe being in a eternal state of equilibrium so why could Heisenberg not be wrong about about reality existing only as a result of direct observation of things and that it does not exist independent of observation. In fact Heisenberg, Schrdinger and Einstein (as well as many other early 20th century physicists) were at odds about the fundamental nature of reality.As far as who is correct? Who knows. I don't claim to be the fountain of all knowledge but I also propose not jumping at every conjecture of knowing what reality is that someone conjures up, no matter what there credentials are. This is why I treat weak atheism/materialism as somewhat of a default position. It makes no hard assertions of what is or is not true. It just states that until proven otherwise, the reality we can measure, observe, test, logically deduce is the reality its adherants believe really exists, not some conjectured unsubstantiated supernatural reality that defies the currently known laws of physics and human logic. If evidence of a greater reality is discovered than this can be accomodated. Yes, I have heard much of what you are proposing before (i.e. Brian Green's 'The Elegant Universe', Stephen Hawkins "A Brief History of Time', Michio Kaku's 'Hyperspace' and of course Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) and for the most part I agree with it. That is matter acts as a wavefunction and that this uncertainity of the position/motion of matter/energy is more evident at the quantum level than at more macroscopic levels due to statistical reasons (as you so eloquantly illustrated). My only exception to this is why does it have to be "designed"? In the same way in which all matter/energy from atoms to galaxies are statistical ensembles. Ok, I see where you are going with this know. I thinks this is where M-Theory, specifically the superstring theory portion attempts to answer the problem of information transmission. That is 1 dimensional energy strings vibrate in different manners and there interactions of which result in the creation of the whole manazery of elementary particles of the standard model. I am not an expert in this area and correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that this M-Theory proposition (including superstring theory) is the latest thinking by a large majority of theoretical physicists. Ok, you are proposing an unknown deity (deism) of which we know nothing about. This does not get around the problem of why and how does this deity that operates outside (as well as inside) our universe exists. You are just adding more layers to the problem that already exists of which Occam's razor would tell us we shouldn't try to add to many layers to an already obfuscated explaination of reality. Yes, that is more evident now.I just believe we should tackle one problem at a time without as I said previously adding more layers onto our existing reality. If we see evidence for the existance of some supreme being/entity/whatever I will concede my previous view (as most atheists would as well). I just see no reason to as of yet. Prove me wrong.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This is a possibility and although i did get trouble from the mods here for suggesting this, it is considered a plausible explanation for reality by a number of physicists. Michio Kaku dedicates a few pages on this hypothesis in his latest book Parallel Universes but dismisses it at the end on the account that the computer needed would be too big!?(I guess he's being gentle and considertae and doesn't want terrorise the public with this notion). I'll refer you to a paper by Max Tegmark where this is also regarded as a possibility. And though solipsism is also consistent with quantum theory, I don't want anyone to go crazy over this as i did, there are other more friendly approaches to handling the findings of QM. If we are a in a simulation - we might be in a simulation run by god. There is one way around the non-locality posited by Bell's theorem(and keeping realism) - giving up the counterfactual definiteness but this is bordering on giving up all free will. Sure, but we should excercise caution and probably keep minors away from it. This isn't really a problem of Heisenberg, Niels Bohr or some other physicists. We either have to prove QM wrong(which is the most tested field of physics) or well, face the music and accept what it says about reality. I am also not an expert in this area and it seems i am hitting a wall with my curioity, a wall probably imposed by the mathematical formalism of string theory. I cannot grasp, for the life of me, how a 1-dimensional vibrating string converts to a 0-dimensional point particle?I also have great trouble understanding how a string of energy can have a size. String theorists claim that a string is one Planck length long, the smallest length tolerated in mathematical physics. For the purposes of physics, energy is not a physical object but an abstract mathematical concept. You cannot draw a picture of this alleged physical object. And you know what - the 1-dimensional string is said to vibrate. If it wasn't proposed by some of the brightest minds of our time, i'd probably be asking - are you serious? How can a 1-dimensional string vibrate without employing a 2nd dimension? But let's just say that i am too retarded to accept their counter-intuitive concepts(maybe that's why i don't have that much faith in human logic, because in personal plan, there is a lot of stuff in physics that i fail to comprehend).
I will very tentatively say, that i suppose the Holographic universe pops out of String Theory because of the vibrations of the 1-dimensional strings. I cannot reference any evidence for this, it may only make sense to me and no one else. This isn't consistent with Bell's theorem. It says we are all One, whether in a projection in a Holographic Universe, a simulation, etc., where the spatial differentiation between objects is an illusion of the mind. In that sense only, and well this is going to sound quite radical, unless someone proves Bell's theorem non-locality wrong, we have to logically conclude the if God exists, we are one wholeness with him. There is simply no reality separated from consciousness, much less different layers of physical realities to speak of.In my personal opinion, the least one should do is remain agnostic.Here is paper that you might find enlightening by physicist Max Tegmark:http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646v2
The Mathematical Universe
Authors: Max TegmarkEdited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This forum section is entitled: "Faith and Belief," not "How can we prove God's existence through science if he can bend the laws of physics at will."Psalms 19:1 says, This will lead many to do this: Blessings

I am still behind the power curve in reading Kaku's latest books (I am cheap and get most of physics books from the library). I will see if I can borrow this one from someone (usually my Dad or my sister hands me down physics books they have bought and read). I still hold to the KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid) axiom and try not to add too many layers like I said previously to an already obfuscated reality (maybe I should write a book on this ). Sounds good. Will read up on it. Wasn't this a proposal for a Star Trek episode? I think the pilot episode with Captain Pike was loosley based on this idea wasn't it? And of course, the Matrix is also based on this proposition of a higher reality. Plato, Descartes and many others were definately deep thinkers in writing about these concepts. Sounds like you have done a lot more research in this area then myself I will have to catch up. I have not heard of Bell's Theorem so I will have to look it up.The only philosophy I have taken is through a Great Courses tape series on Philosophy on my 75 mile drive to work. Maybe I will take a course in that in my next semester of college.My 4 year old is tugging on my arm to go outside and play so I will have to finish this facinating discussion later.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

First, the THREAD is titled "Who/What created God?".Also, YOUR particular brand of God is not the ONLY one out there, as you can see by Abogots description of what he is describing as God.This is just another example of your Christian arrogance to think that the God concept is solely a Christian idea.This debate between Abogot and DA has been very interesting and informative, and at least in Abogots perspetive, God and science can co-exist, so kindly leave your little unsupported mythology out of it.Austin 3:16 says...Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky